https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109008 The Tribunal held that Notification No. 124/2000 was not retrospective and would operate only from its date of issuance, 29-9-2000. The appellants were not entitled to the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid prior to this date. The Tribunal emphasized that the Treaty provisions required activation through proper notifications under the Customs Act and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable. The dissenting opinion suggested honoring the Treaty and considering the notification retrospective, but the majority decision upheld the impugned order, denying the refund claim. en-us Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:52:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109008 The Tribunal held that Notification No. 124/2000 was not retrospective and would operate only from its date of issuance, 29-9-2000. The appellants were not entitled to the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid prior to this date. The Tribunal emphasized that the Treaty provisions required activation through proper notifications under the Customs Act and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable. The dissenting opinion suggested honoring the Treaty and considering the notification retrospective, but the majority decision upheld the impugned order, denying the refund claim. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109008